Jurisdiction assessments 3 Company assessments 10 Investor assessments 16

Contents Overview 1

1. Jurisdiction assessments 3

National jurisdictions 3 Overall policies 3 Track record 5 Governance 7 Subnational jurisdictions 8 Overall policies 8 Track record 9

2. Company assessments 10

Overall forest policy 10 Commodity policies 11 Operations 13 Reporting and transparency 14

3. Investor assessments 16

Overall forest policy 15 Policy strength 8 Monitoring, reporting transparency 19 References 20 1 Overview Introduction In order to reveal the potential impacts of the powerbrokers included in the Forest 500 on tropical forests, assessments of each of the actors in respect to different forest risk commodity policy indicators have been carried out. Powerbrokers within three categories of the Forest 500 have been assessed the 450 powerbrokers in the companies, investors and jurisdictions categories and awarded a score. The 50 other powerbrokers comprising the remainder of the Forest 500 have not been assessed due to their diversity in terms of relevance to the tropical deforestation discussion and lack of comparable policies. This methodology shows the process by which each powerbroker has been scored and details the different criteria that have been developed to assess each of the different actor types – national and subnational forest jurisdictions, national trading jurisdictions, companies, and investors. This methodology and the criteria used have been reviewed by a number of stakeholders. Scoring Scoring has been carried out double blind – that is each powerbroker has been assessed independently at least twice by two or more different researchers. The resulting two or more scores have subsequently been reviewed and where discrepancies on specific indicators have occurred, the information has been reassessed and scores adjusted. Assessments have been carried out according to information presented in the original language that each powerbroker operates in, with assessments conducted in English, Mandarin, Japanese, Bahasa, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, Dutch, Italian, German, Arabic, Taiwanese and Korean. In total, actors could achieve maximum scores out of 100, in relation to different indicators across several different policy categories, which differ between the assessments for each actor type. It is important to recognise that while research has attempted to provide assessments of current policies, jurisdictions, companies and investors are continually updating their policies. Therefore, scores for assessments apply from the time of research. Following review, overall scores and the individual scores for each policy area have been converted to a points system, out of a maximum number of five points. Overall scores, out of 100, have been converted to between zero and five points for each 20 per cent increase as shown in the table below. Scores for individual policy indicator areas have varying maximum scores depending on sector and have therefore been converted to a percentage before conversion to between zero and five points for each 20 per cent increase. Scores have been converted into a five point system to reduce the granularity in assessment results. Particularly in regard to corporate policies, there is generally a lack of consensus on terms and definitions, meaning that the wording of policies of different actors is often not comparable. The lack of standard communication tools for these policies has required some interpretation when assessing and assigning scores. Converting scores to the five point system has attempted to standardise the assessments and remove the emphasis from minor score differences resulting from variations in communication and policy interpretation. 2 Five Point System ACTUAL SCORE RANGE POINTS AWARDED 0 points 0.01 -19.99 1 point 20-39.99 2 points 40-59.99 3 points 60-79.99 4 points 80-100 5 points References and sources With the exception of a few criteria that can be regarded as proxies for effectiveness of implementation e.g. metrics related to governance within jurisdiction assessments, assessments have been based solely on public commitments and policies and do not attempt to assess the implementation or the fulfilment of these. Unless otherwise noted, all references and sources of information used for the assessments of companies and investors are from the organisations’ own websites, as it is reasonable to expect that these actors should use these as tools to communicate their policies to consumers and clients. Such sources include sustainability reports, annual reports, and any other documents or information presented directly on organisational websites. Methodology Improvements After receiving feedback from a number of stakeholders during 2015 including civil society organisations and members of the Forest 500 we have refined the methodology to ensure it maintains relevance and applicability across all identified powerbrokers. The below improvements apply to the company methodology only. The jurisdictions and investor methodologies remain unaltered. 1. In question 1.1, the number of points awarded for a net zero commitment across all commodities was raised from 6 to 8 points. This decision was based upon feedback that the question be reweighted with greater recognition of the complexity of a cross-commodity net zero commitment. 2. In questions 2.1 and 2.2, ISCC and Proterra are no longer being defined as “credible certification schemes” as they do not include NGOscivil society in the decision- making process. 3. In question 2.4, traceability will now be defined as traceability back to mill rather than back to plantation. This is because few companies currently have the ability to do so, unless they have vertically integrated supply chains, and because in the near-term impossible for certain products i.e. pulp and paper. 4. The scoring within the Operations section of the methodology as well as for Reporting and Transparency questions 4.1 and 4.2 were revised to better take into consideration commodity specific policies, i.e. some points are awarded even if the less than 50 of existing policies comply with the question. Please note that we will not be reflecting these changes in the historical scores because the above refinements will have a minimal impact to previous scores. 3

1. Jurisdiction assessments